Will the internet survive energy contraction?

Oh oh, I know this one. It's the reason why London had "pea soup fogs" right?

I think coal was the cause of the killer fogs.

I forget but it takes 4-12 cords of wood to heat a house in the winter. That is a lot of wood, now a housewife would have to saw the logs, split the cut pieces (preferably with a sledge and wedges) and then split the kindling. Now you can split with an axe, but it is a great way to cut your self. Then the wood also needs to be seasoned, preferably after sawing and before splitting, it takes about a year to make sure most of it is seasoned.

So you need to have next years wood sawed up and stacked a year in advance, then you split the stuff your sawed last year. Now the real issue is rain, which is why you have a wood shed, that is to keep the split wood dry. Especially after freezing weather comes, the wood that is wet will not dry, so you want it dry and in the shed before winter.
So you need about double the amount of wood you burn around.

Now the other issue besides the pain of cooking on wood is chimneys and fires. You can set the inside of your house on fire a number of ways especially with candles and lanterns. There is a brick hearth to your fireplace if you are lucky, and hopefully a good draw on your chimney. Nothing like the smoke that comes into the house when the flue is cold or the wind backs the chimney. If you burn hard wood, and burn four cords, your chimney is not likely to need cleaning every season, but burn eight cords and it is probably a good idea. If you burn soft , pitchy or wet wood, you are going to have much more creosote in the chimney and it needs regular cleaning.

Then there is the issue of the flue, modern liners are ceramic, single pieces, they are also usually encased in bricks. Guess what a log cabin does not have? Bricks. Guess what is not available in many parts of the world? Stone for chimneys. So either you have a partially wooden chimney or you have a stone chimney that butts up against the wood frame of your house.

So creosote is combustible, you just have to get the chimney really hot and have flames reach a spot full of creosote, that and a stone chimney can get very hot, if you have crack in it you can have flames and heat directly on the frame of your house. If you have a wooden chimney without a ceramic flue, you can only have very small fires.

So that is the hazards and problems with burning wood for heat, it is one thing if you have a modern cast iron stove, a sledge and wedges or a power splitter, a large frame saw drawn by two or a chain saw. It is another matter if the hearth and fire box are cold, drafty, wet and your kindling is scant and you are trying to use sparks and tinder to start the kindling. Oh so you might need a seasons worth of tinder as well.

Oh and that is why you bank the fire, that does not just mean that you pile the coals up, it can if you have a really good coal bed and some decent splits in the firebox, you might have enough coals in the morning to have a fire. But often it means putting un split pieces in the fire box about two hours before bed, letting them get good and hot and then banking the fire. Now this provides a tiny smidge of heat at night, and allows for a guaranteed fire in the morning, but it also means what? Leaving the fire unattended over night, which means a risk of fire somewhere while you sleep.

Fortunately you house is drafty so you don't have to worry about CO poisoning.
 
Last edited:
Fortunately you house is drafty so you don't have to worry about CO poisoning.

Those are the logistics and the CO2.

Don't forget, also, that an open hearth is not a very healthy thing to be around for extended periods. The particulates that come with wood fuel are both bad for you and the environment. It's also the specific reason why there's a ban on new wood-fueled installations over here. You can use the ones already installed, but not install new ones.
 
From what I can see, the electric car is a lot like a pipe dream to me.

The Nissan Leaf comes out in December. 20,000 people have already pre-ordered one, and now there's a waiting list.

How can you make any viable plastics without petroleum?

Plastics are already being made from things like corn oil. And if plastic production becomes too expensive, I foresee former landfills becoming "plastic mines".

how would UPS and FedEx even be able to function without petroleum?

Biodiesel and/or electric.
 
Those are the logistics and the CO2.

Don't forget, also, that an open hearth is not a very healthy thing to be around for extended periods. The particulates that come with wood fuel are both bad for you and the environment. It's also the specific reason why there's a ban on new wood-fueled installations over here. You can use the ones already installed, but not install new ones.

I have read that women used to splash water on their skirts to keep them from scorching as well, the amount of soot, even with a well drawing chimney is amazing.

I also did not mention the other factors, cutting down trees, preferably only a foot or 1/3 of a meter in diamter and hauling them on a sledge to your yard.
 
I have read that women used to splash water on their skirts to keep them from scorching as well, the amount of soot, even with a well drawing chimney is amazing.

I also did not mention the other factors, cutting down trees, preferably only a foot or 1/3 of a meter in diamter and hauling them on a sledge to your yard.

A much better, simpler time :rolleyes:
 
Hell, my graphing calculator (TI-89) runs on 4 AAA batteries. Its processor was developed in 1979, and it's many, many orders of magnitude more powerful than ENIAC, which weighed 30 tons and used about 200 kW of power.
Indeed.

I chose the UltraSparc II as an example because it was the workhorse of the Dot Com boom - so much so that it's the baseline figure for the Spec 2006 benchmark suite, i.e. a CPU with a score of 80 is 80 times as fast as the UltraSparc II.

Another interesting comparison is the SPECpower benchmark, which is concerned with the performance/power consumption ratio. A modern, low-power server can be 80 times as efficient here as one from as recently as 2004 - using less than half the power while delivering nearly 30 times the performance.

So an application that required an entire rack of servers chewing up more than 10KW just six years ago will now run on a single server at just 172W. And the difference when the servers are not busy is even greater - from over 6KW down to 53W.
 
Wow David, sounds like you've got some experience there. Mine mostly comes from the cooking lectures at Greenfield Village and the fire was already going by the time I got there. I still remember how bloody HOT it was in those kitchens and just how long it took to boil down the fruits for preserves and the like. An interesting experience but not a pleasant one.
 
Wow David, sounds like you've got some experience there. Mine mostly comes from the cooking lectures at Greenfield Village and the fire was already going by the time I got there. I still remember how bloody HOT it was in those kitchens and just how long it took to boil down the fruits for preserves and the like. An interesting experience but not a pleasant one.

Nope, I am just an amateur. :) I have had friends who have heated with wood (one in Illinois, three out west, one in Newfoundland), I had a friend, since deceased who grew up on a farm in Montana in the 20s, and I have gone to a lot of pioneer/settler interpretative centers.

(Out west and in rural situations here in Illinois wood furnaces are very common, some burn wood pellets or corn. It savers on the LP bill.)
 
EROEI? That's what you're going to use? Even assuming that efficiencies stay the same (which is a ludicrous assumption), every single renewable energy source has a higher EROEI than both petroleum and coal.

No

imagepreview.png
 
Sure glad we waited a week for that very informative, well-referenced explanation. You must have put a lot of work into it.

So once a wind turbine extracts 18 times the energy it took to make it, it explodes? The solar panels just melt?

Are you going to take the time to understand what you post, or are you just going to spam whatever your google-fu takes you to?

What's your point? It's already well established that oil has a higher energy density than almost every other power source. That doesn't mean there's not enough renewable energy to power the global grid.
 
Last edited:
Sure glad we waited a week for that very informative explanation. You must have put a lot of work into it.

So once a wind turbine extracts 18 times the energy it took to make it, it explodes? The solar panels just melt?

Are you going to take the time to understand what you post, or are you just going to spam whatever your google-fu takes you to?

That doesn't change the fact that alternatives do NOT have a bigger EROEI than easily extracted fossil fuels. Or do you really think there's not a difference between 100:1 to 4:1?

And yes, solar panels and wind turbines eventually break after use.
 
Have you come up with any numbers showing that civilization is going to collapse once the oil runs out because renewable energy sources won't be sufficient? We're waiting eagerly.
 
Maybe you should read this http://www.energybulletin.net/51455

"Entropy revisited"

Oh, you mean the article where he handwaves away many of the renewables with this gem?
The third big issue regarding fossil fuels is their potential energy. Coal and oil are just lying underground, containing dense sums of energy, begging us to gobble it up for our own immediate use, leaving nothing behind in the quintessential capitalist game of heedless maximization (e.g., Daniel Quinn's theory of leavers and takers). There's no need to turn a turbine with the quaint use of wind or water to generate electricity. There's no need to bust apart atoms through exotic, risky, and expensive means that produce the nastiest of all wastes. Insatiable vampires, we jam our fang-like straws into the ground to extract easily combusted ancient sun-blood.

okay :rolleyes:
 
Oh, you mean the article where he handwaves away many of the renewables with this gem?


okay :rolleyes:

Well maybe you missed this?

Guy R. McPherson said:
It's easy to understand why we committed to crude oil early in the industrial game. Its energy density, EROI, and convenience of combustion are irresistible. It's small wonder, then, that we developed an entire civilization based on fossil fuels. The physics underlying the conversion of energy into heat, power, force, or work is a tangle of interrelated concepts not easily sorted out by nonscientists. However, whether various inputs and outputs are measured in watts, Btu, calories, joules, newtons, or volts, what's clear is that civilization is currently engorged, literally feasting on fossil fuels. But it's not anything close to a zero sum game, where resources stay constant and are only shifted around over time. Rather, the Second Law guarantees there is always a diminishing return.

Ultimately, all this points to a future in which we will be energy poor because we've used up the storehouse of cheap, convenient energy. In the not-so-distant future, the purportedly nonnegotiable American way of life, which is based on inexpensive and rapid movement of humans and materials via conversion of stored energy to mechanical power, will no longer be possible. Put in more immediate terms, there will soon be a time when old folks say with some nostalgia, "Oh yeah, I remember warm showers."
 
Well maybe you missed this?

Missed what? A nonscientist misinterpreting something? He can't even correctly interpret the article he cites.

Can you come up with something solid, instead of ping-ponging between articles with a few sentences that agree with you?
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom